BoxRec has a records rival as FightFax goes digital

By Oliver Fennell

IT’S A story as familiar as boxing itself – the old-timer returning to the sport in an attempt to recapture past glories. This comeback, however, is playing out not in rings and gyms but on computers and smartphones.

Most fans and fighters, if they’d heard of it at all, probably thought FightFax, the original official record-keeper for boxing, was a thing of the analogue past, gone the way of cassettes and payphones.

Founded in New Jersey in 1984 by Ralph Citro, the service was originally called Computer Boxing Update, using an early database to record results and boxer statistics which could be printed out and posted to matchmakers, and which were collected in an annual book.

The company was bought by Phil Marder in 1990 and renamed FightFax in 1994 to reflect how it had moved with the times by primarily faxing records instead of mailing them.

But it failed to move with the times in the 21st Century as internet use gathered pace. FightFax employee Anibal Miramontes bought the company in 2001, but continued to use anachronistic technology and methods while rival record-keeper BoxRec, launched a year earlier, provided instant access to information via its website.

Even so, the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) still consulted FightFax, given its more complete and accurate database at the time. But by 2016 the takeover was complete – BoxRec had grown sufficiently in terms of both its database and its reputation that the ABC voted to recognise it as the sport’s official record-keeper.

With FightFax still not offering an online service, it largely descended into irrelevancy, with little mention of it in the press bar the news of Miramontes’ passing in 2021. It had been assumed since then that FightFax was, if not dead, then at least dormant.

But this past August, at the WBA Asia convention in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, FightFax was officially relaunched as an online entity, headquartered in Singapore, under acting CEO Han Hoang. It turned out that FightFax had, in fact, stayed quietly busy in the three years between Miramontes’ death and the relaunch.

“The records have been maintained, they just hadn’t been uploaded online,” a FightFax spokesman tells Boxing News.

“I should mention the change of our major stakeholder, who took over in 2021 [after Miramontes’ death]. He employed a lot of people to put everything online; all the records, one by one. Even now, the team is still updating records from history. It’s been three years [of work].”

So, who is this “major stakeholder”?

“Right now, he doesn’t want to be named, because of the political state,” says the spokesman – who also doesn’t want to be named. “He just wants people to focus on FightFax.com as a tool that everyone can use, not because of his name, but rest assured he has a big background in the industry; decades of background already.”

Politics is an inescapable part of boxing, even when it comes to something as seemingly neutral as statistics. This was evident in how BoxRec, within two weeks of a direct competitor relaunching with the endorsement of the WBA, removed all mention of the WBA and its championships, both contemporary and historical. Despite the curious timing of this development, BoxRec has not publicly issued any explanation, which rightly or wrongly can only leave people to draw their own conclusions.

And the plot looks to thicken further. “We were able to talk with the WBC as well,” says the spokesman. “They said they were supporting us, and we will be at their convention this December [in Hamburg, Germany].”

The WBC has had issues with BoxRec, too. Last November, the sanctioning body said it would “suspend cooperation” with BoxRec over the latter’s refusal to recognise the bridgerweight division – meaning not only are bridgerweight title fights not recorded, but bridgerweight boxers are not ranked at all. It’s not clear what “suspending cooperation” entailed, and the wider WBC is still recognised by BoxRec, but the bridgerweight issue was another example of the sport’s “official record keeper” refusing to keep certain records.

In recent years, BoxRec has been criticised in some quarters – and by affected boxers – for not recognising certain sanctioning bodies, commissions and championships. While many fans and observers may applaud this, given the confusing proliferation of belts and variable standards of licensing, another argument is that it’s not a record-keeper’s place to subjectively define legitimacy.

As the spokesman says when asked what FightFax does differently, or better, than BoxRec: “We are record-keepers, not gatekeepers.”

He adds: “I just want to emphasise why we revived FightFax – it was more frustration with the current boxing record-keeper; they try to be gatekeepers of boxing records. Especially on the boxers’ side, it’s what they deserve [to have all their fights recorded]. In terms of title belts, or commissions, we don’t want to be that wall that hinders boxers.”

Several countries and states have more than one boxing commission, including the UK. In most cases – but not all – BoxRec only recognises one. It is unclear what BoxRec’s criteria for inclusion is, but FightFax is more open-minded.

“We accept them [boxing commissions] if their government or similar authority has assigned them as legitimate, they have the paperwork, they follow all rules and regulations, and make the safety of their fighters the top priority,” says the spokesman.

One such commission that passes muster with FightFax but not BoxRec is the British and Irish Boxing Authority (BIBA). This leads to discrepancies in records as presented by the two sites. For example, current Commonwealth women’s flyweight champion Nicola Hopewell has a 6-1 record on BoxRec, which ignores six BIBA contests she had prior to switching to a British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC) licence. FightFax does recognise them, and shows she is 12-1 as a pro.

Similarly, Aberdeen welterweight Lee McAllister is 38-3 on BoxRec but 49-3 on FightFax, having been licensed by BIBA since 2016. Liverpool super-lightweight Paul Peers is either 12-7 or 3-3, depending on which site you consult. Lincolnshire super-middleweight Nathan DeCastro either retired in 2019 with a 16-0 record, or in 2016 at 7-0.

And this is not just about BIBA, which does have its detractors and is also not recognised by the BBBofC. The international-level likes of Ashley Theophane and Prince Patel, and even American female boxing great Layla McCarter, complain of having incomplete records on BoxRec because they have boxed under the ‘wrong’ commission overseas.

The FightFax spokesman says: “If you don’t keep all the information, how are you going to say your records are complete?

“The sad part is it’s the boxers who are penalised. They say, ‘I have all the documents, some video recordings, signed judges’ scorecards, everything to show it actually happened and was legitimate, then they just reject my submission without any remarks’.

“We don’t want to have any bias in our record-keeping; we want to empower boxing records. We want complete data.”

If you’re a boxer who’s gone through the rigours and risks of a professional fight, it’s natural you’ll want that participation recorded. You’d also appreciate knowing if a prospective opponent has had 19 bouts rather than six. And if you’re a journalist or fan who wants to look up a particular title lineage, and one site doesn’t carry that information, then you’d have no option but to look elsewhere.

So, is that FightFax’s ultimate goal – to dethrone BoxRec and regain the title of the ABC’s “official record-keeper”?

“ABC can select who they want,” says the spokesman. “But FightFax will just keep on recording fights regardless, because we’re not doing this for politics – we’re doing this for the fighters.”